Skip to main content
Glama
jonasliesas

singlestore-mcp-server

by jonasliesas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

schema_explorer_analyze

Idempotent

Run ANALYZE TABLE on the given tables, one statement per table, and report each result.

Instructions

Run ANALYZE TABLE on the given tables, one statement per table, and report each result.

Refuses unless ``confirm`` is true: call it only after the user saw the plan
(schema_explorer_analyze_plan) and explicitly confirmed. At most 10 tables per call.

Args:
    database: Database (case-sensitive).
    tables: Base tables to analyze (case-sensitive), at most 10.
    confirm: Must be true: the user's explicit confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tablesYes
confirmNo
databaseYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a non-destructive maintenance operation. It adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the tool refuses to run without explicit confirmation and enforces a 10-table ceiling per call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The refusal rule and the prerequisite are front-loaded before the Args block, which is good structure. Minor redundancy: 'at most 10 tables' appears in both the body and the Args section, and the confirm requirement is restated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and 'report each result' is the only hint at return content, which is thin for a per-table operation. However, the gating, limits, and parameter semantics an agent needs to invoke it correctly are all present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it documents all three parameters, flags case-sensitivity for both database and tables, restricts tables to base tables with a 10-item cap, and defines confirm as requiring the user's explicit confirmation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (run ANALYZE TABLE on the given tables) plus execution granularity (one statement per table) and output behavior (report each result). This clearly separates it from the sibling schema_explorer_analyze_plan, which is referenced as the planning step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the precondition (call only after the user saw the plan via schema_explorer_analyze_plan and explicitly confirmed), the hard gate (refuses unless confirm is true), and the scale limit (at most 10 tables per call). Both when-to-use and the alternative sibling are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools